In 2001 I had an interesting, if disheartening, e-mail discussion about freedom
and responsibility. Details have been expunged to prevent an unfortunate termination
of employment. The following is a slightly edited version of that correspondence.

* * *

Dear
“Bobg:” [Name modified to protect the guilty]

Message
text written by bobg@big_name_corp.com [errors are yours]:

>Seems
to me the recent blowup with the Napster thing evidences the fact that the music
industry is attempting to shift their responsibility for prototecting their
data from malicious attack or theft from their corporate selves onto third parties.

if
you have data and wnat to protect it, do so. if you don't then it is in the
realm of freely available data. if i can access it and use it, that is not my
fault. you did not protect yourself. put you prized possessions in a condom
or live with the risk.

the
Internet must reamin an anarchistic, free-flowing uncontrolled environment.

Bob
G.<

*
* *

How
do you apply your principles to your own correspondence and to your own privacy?

How about this: I'll
quote you verbatim in an upcoming column, complete with misspellings and erratic
punctuation. And unless you are forging your e-mail headers, you appear to be
working for Big_Name Corporation (at least for now).

So in line with being
an anarchistic, free-flowing uncontrolled environment, I can publish your name,
e-mail address and title when I republish your letter. I can forward your message
to your employer -- the public relations department will love it -- as evidence
of your degree of professionalism, ability to think logically, and skill in
writing English.

In
addition, if I take your advice, I suppose I could construct an equivalent claim
(but cleaned up a bit) for you to consider:

>Seems
to me the recent blowup with the publishing of private correspondence evidences
the fact that individuals are attempting to shift their responsibility for protecting
their private letters from malicious publication from themselves onto third
parties.

If you have private
comments and want to protect them, do so. If you don't, then they are in the
realm of freely available data. If I can access it and use them, that is not
my fault. You did not protect yourself. Put your prized possessions in a condom
or live with the risk.

So
I guess you'll agree that if I abuse you by violating your copyright on your
own writing, it's your own fault for writing to me. And if thieves steal gasoline,
it's the victim's fault for not having better security. And if a torturer harms
children, it's their parents' fault for not protecting them. And if, in general,
bad people do bad things to others, it's entirely their victims' fault for not
being able to prevent those harms.

As for the anarchistic,
free-flowing uncontrolled environment, it would be interesting to hear from
you why you make that assertion about TCP/IP-connected networks but not about,
say, modem-mediated linkups, telephone conversations, letter writing, or face-to-face
interactions. Why the special treatment for a particular communications technology?
What is so special about a particular communications protocol that forces the
implication that we ought to discard normal expectations for civility?

And why not extend
your arbitrary rules about breaking down rules of courtesy and honesty when
using the Internet to the use of particular languages? For example, how do
you defend "the Internet must remain an anarchistic, free-flowing uncontrolled
environment" without also supporting the view that "the use of French
must remain an anarchistic, free-flowing uncontrolled environment?" Under
this extension of your principle, I can hit you over the head with a mallet
(assuming I can reach you and you can't defend yourself) as long as I cry, "Merde,
espèce de crétin!" but not if I say the same thing in English.

* * *

The originator of this message wrote back with the
following comments:

>Message
text written by bobg@big_name_corp.com:

>oopsie ... i put
my foot in it, eh ... opened the can and jumped in with the worms ... argh ...

your points are valid
... however, using my name and company puts me at risk and i don't need that
hassle ... you make the point rather succinctly ... the dialog does show both
sides of the issue ... if you feel you must ruin or at least jeopardize my career,
so be it ... use this as a column but PLEASE leave my real name and employer
out of it

... i will leave the
issue there and ponder my further response ...<

*
* *

So much for the anarchistic, free-flowing uncontrolled
environment of the Internet.